Blogs for Bush is hosting a Design A Stamp contest to counter the Columbia College in Chicago’s “art” exhibit of a “sheet of stamps” of President Bush with a gun to his head.
| Here is my submission. Go to Blogs for Bush and see the other submissions and send in your own! |
 |
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah (cue image of Al from Happy Days – it’s retro sitcom week here at Musing Minds). How many times have we seen this before? The MSM implies a story line. Facts, which can only surface with the passage of time, show the opposite of what was originally reported. The media plasters the original story line all over the map, and is completely silent when the truth comes out. Oh, they’d report the follow up facts if it confirmed their preconcieved story line. Otherwise…..nah.
John Kerry is again “reporting for duty”. The mission: make the U.S. military look victimized. Not really a new mission actually, but a continuation of one he began in the early ’70’s. He’s sending out a mass e-mail to military families asking for stories of dissatisfaction.
At at time when the U.S. military has achieved stunning success, unparalleled in modern history, John Kerry is scratching away at anything negative he can find.
Read all about it from Lorie at PoliPundit.
Welcome Polipundit readers!
Update: Will Collier over at Vodkapundit has a good response to Mr. Kerry. Read the comments too.
Part of the problem in the debate over judicial activism is the belief on the part of many that judges possess superior qualities from the rest of the population. Judges weigh competing facts and interpret the law and come to decisions. They are humans who possess the same traits of bias, envy, greed, self importance and self loathing that the rest of us have in varying degrees. They bring these traits to the table every time they arrive at a decision. Until we can design robots intelligent enough to replace humans on the judiciary, this will continue to be the case.
But to many, judges are superior beings who somehow possess the ability to derive “the truth”. It is so if a judge says it’s so. The Schiavo case was a perfect example of this. As a case in point, Ann Althouse (who, by the way, thought that Schumer did a good job of defending his opposition to the filibuster on Meet the Press last weekend) had this to say about recent comments from Justice Kennedy:
But I love the cool, measured response that models judicial demeanor. It helps people see that judges function in a different way from politicians, even though the politicians are pushing the proposition that they don’t.
Apparently judges don’t have agendas or hold political views, they are above the political fray. Justice R2 D2 in the year 2199 maybe, but today our judges are still human.
Tony Blankley wrote a scathing piece about Tom DeLay’s attackers. He also goes after those Republicans that seem to be cutting and running from their faithful leader. Check out his final paragraph:
If a party can be stampeded by phony charges and a run of shoddy stories in whorish newspapers into dumping their most effective congressional leader, I wouldn’t give 2 cents for their near-term future. A party that would voluntarily cut off its own testicles and FedEx them to their opponent as a trophy, is not likely to manifest any regenerative powers. That’s the thing about losing those organs.
He also has some choice words for the NYT, I suggest you read the whole thing.
Here’s an extensive article about the biased MSM’s failure to report good news out of Iraq. I think its a well written article, but it seems that everything in it has been said a hundred times before on the blogosphere.
I’d say that’s more a testament to the blogosphere being ahead in the enlightenment game, than an indictment of David Limbaugh. Reading it reminded me of the fact that most of the public is still in the dark on MSM bias and other issues regularily discussed on blogs. Last year, before I entered the Matrix, that article would have seemed so radical to me.
I find it hard to imagine that that framers of the Constitution silently wanted to have a process which is designed to thwart the other explicitly created processes. That’s like saying a car maker intended its line of cars to have a chronic stalling problem. At least let’s start with an honest debate and recognize that the filibuster was a political tool created after-the-fact and cut out all this “it’s part of our constitution” nonsense.
Kaus takes a look at the reasons for ending the filibuster, and cites Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker as follows:
But as a longtime constitutional reformer, Hertzberg is himself an anti-filibusterist, recognizing that the Constitution–which doesn’t mention filibusters–already makes it way too difficult for the government to pass laws desired by a majority. Think about it: An identical bill has to pass two different legislatures, with differing terms, and then be approved by a President who may or may not be in the majority party. Isn’t that difficult enough? Why add an extra, non-constitutional rule that makes it even harder to get anything done?
But Kaus and Hertzberg go on to state how appointing judicial nominees is different than passing legislation because its a permanent decision and we don’t want to be left with a radical judge for life. But again, isn’t this just another ex post facto political rationalization? I don’t think you can have it both ways without saying “the Constitution be damned”. And I don’t hear too many Democrats saying that.
Modo and Friedman demoted? Kinda looks that way. Is Dowd low hanging fruit on the tree of accountability or is she just getting tiresome? Probably a bit of both. I’m not holding my breath for the NYT to dramatically change its approach any time soon. Hat tip Lorie at Polipundit
Just caught Fox News Sunday and Sen. Schumer (D) was on looking increasingly desperate on the judicial filibuster issue. He actually said that by allowing a simple up down majority vote it would make the Senate look like a “banana republic.”
A couple of observations. Usually when somebody looks and sounds desperate, that’s because they are desperate. In addition to the above ridiculous comment, he hedged on the question as to whether Republicans have the votes to stop the filibuster, saying that he’s spoken to a number of Republican senators that will vote for it even though they know it is wrong. Translation: the Republicans probably have the votes.
As for the “banana republic” comment, my father emigrated from a totalitarian regime which recently embraced democracy. They danced in the streets in celebration of the fact that they finally were able to have majority rule. Schumer, like so many other Dems these days, appears to have completely lost all perspective. Opposing what is effectively a minority veto over the majority is totalitarianism to the Dems. I think DJ over at PoliPundit is on to something when he writes about the destruction of the Democratic party.
Powerline has a couple of good takes on the Talking Points Memo story here and here. I’m happy to say that they too noticed the “real but inaccurate” irony, which I mentioned awhile ago.
Here’s my last word on the issue: those on the left acting all outraged at us conservative bloggers for speculating that the media used forged memos, is sort of like chastising a woman for accusing her cheating boyfriend of having another affair when this time he “only” had his hand on her butt.
To use the immortal words of Glenn Reynolds……heh.
UPDATE: Captain Ed has a good summary as well.
